[old-ager]

> Whats so hard to understand?

Never said I did not understand, and you know it. You ignore my assertion that it's you (your way of thought) that does not understand (or more correctly, WILLS itself not to understand). Understanding is not the problem. Believing is. Your way of thought refuses to believe that there is any other way of thinking. I have already been through thinking the way you do; I was in sixth grade at the time. This is a fact. If it ends up feeling like an insult, I am sorry, but maybe you are too proud.

[Axenolith]

The "whats so hard to understand" is self referential. I don't have any problem with it as a matter of fact. AFIC, it's irrelevant. Regardless of the Earth being six thousand some odd years old, or 4.5 billion, there's evidence there for either side to use. Bottom line is, big critters still lived here at SOME time, and you can use evidential age and superposition to find things like minerals and oil. IMO, the only time the subject gets sticky is when old earthers utilize their arguement as a basis to attack Christianity and God rather than to suppport practical aspects of science.

I've discussed the subject with some more theologically knowledged than me, and they've gone so far as to speculate that mearly because the current world was formed "from the void and darkness" it doesn't necessarily assume that there was no previously existing world which could have generated the geologic record. The current world was created by God for Man, and I for one, meager sinner that I am, try not to let the age bickering overshadow that his Son died for us and is the road to salvation.